Black people are the most politically astute voting class in the U.S. today and voting as a block for Democrats is just proof of that. Unlike Whites who are financially similarly situated, you will almost never see Black voters tricked into voting for a party due to asinine and unimportant issues like gay marriage, abortion or feminism. But poor and middle-class Whites fall for those distractions all the time. While Democrats have not always lived up to their promises of greater economic equality, they are a damn sight better than the Republicans. The Black voting population knows that voting for Republicans is exactly like a chicken voting for KFC and it pisses the Republicans off. IF only Black voters could be tricked by distractions as easily as Whites, the Republicans would have a lock.

The message, not the messenger, requires a bit of examination. Policies promoted by Democrats, black or white, have had unintended consequences, just as those promoted by Republicans, white or old. But there have always been those who claim that the policies unintended consequences were the real goal in the first place - be they dependence on government entitlements or dependence on quotas to get through life.

The problem with long term execution of those policies that are enacted to achieve an outcome for progressive improvement (for example, minority representation in college population) don't always have a sunset transition plan - in other words, how do you objectively wind down racial preferences in college? How is success measured and policy gradually allowed to terminate?

It's also not unfair to look at the way that politicians use those policies to remain in power - "What has the other Party ever REALLY done for you?" The fact is, however, that almost any institution can be used improperly - those policies that are meant to provide the "safety net" are usually used to protect the most poor from the worst conditions, but there are some who will settle for the worst. The answer lies within - and that question is usually worth asking but the answer is going to be different from every person.

Which is why a valid question, in the hands of a stupid person, is an unintended consequence of "Freedom of Speech".

Welfare=racism in theses people's minds. But only when blacks receive welfare. When whites receive welfare it's because they are going through a difficult time right now and GET YOUR HANDS OFF MY MEDICARE!!!!

Marcus Aurelius:"Unquestionably white Democrats are the most racist people I've ever met, and they have infected black Democrats. The irony is that black Democrats will one day realize the racism from their white handlers and, blacks will bite the hand that feeds them. Unfortunately America will likely be bankrupt when it happens"

This is another problem with GOP/"Conservative" minority outreach. Reasoning that the Republican party is the best political party for blacks to support because Democrats lynched people 60+ years ago while promoting policies today which disenfranchises them, eliminates education opportunities, reduces access to healthcare, and create conditions where the poorest of the poor are denied food; is not the best way to endear yourself to the African American community. It ignores a LOT of history since then, which makes "Conservatives" come across as condescending. It also insinuates that the African American community are "lazy" as a whole and the only thing that is "keeping them down" is they have it too good because of welfare; which makes "Conservatives" come across as arrogant, hateful, and as jerks who are clueless to the plight of the African American community.

Actually the racist roots of Prohibition had the Republican party introducing the Volstead Act, to keep those immigrants and Irish and blacks and browns from drinking since they couldn't handle their liquor.

That solved, it got lots of Democrats elected a few years later. Now weed is the demon because of its association with the blacks and the browns and the intellectuals.

Oh, wow - I thought we'd lost that one with the witless protection alt.

DRINK!

This guy isn't a troll, he's just honestly stupid.

In case you actually don't know what is going on.http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21PR-Tea_Party_Racism_072910.html

"There is no evidence that tea party adherents are any more racist than other Republicans, and indeed many other Americans."

This is probably true. And it in no way reflects well on the Tea Party, the GOP, or "many Americans." It most certainly does zilch to bolster the legitimacy, or in fact the non-potato status, of "Joe" the "Plumber." And, frankly, it reflects poorly on you for not realizing that.

Mambo Bananapatch:Phil Moskowitz: I remember a day when dumb Americans were embarrassed about how stupid they were and they kept their mouth shut.

Huh. You know, I'm kind of having trouble remembering which day that was.

it was a tuesday in March some years agoit was a quiet day that began with birdsong and a soft breeze from the eastat noon, the town squares all over the nation were filled with the gentle rustle of leaves (oak, elm, pine) and the sounds of children laughing at recess could be heardby dusk, the crickets began chirping and, as the mingled scents of cooking drifted through open windows you could heard the soft strains of lover's voices, the gentle recitation of homework drills, and the faint clink of after-supper cocktails.

jso2897:ongbok: jso2897: ox45tallboy: Smeggy Smurf: He has a point. How many Democrats believe that blacks cannot compete with whites on a level playing field? It's all about affirmative action and quotas as though the color of your skin actually matter if you're capable of doing the job or not. Soft racism of low expectations is still racism.

How about acknowledgement of things which disproportionately affect people of different races? Such as the incarceration rates and sentence lengths of people of different races, the 4th Amendment violations of "stop and frisk", demands for proof of citizenship, high school graduation rates, sentencing differences between powder and rock cocaine, and poverty?

I think he problem is that one side truly believes that there is a "level playing field", the other acknowledges the fact that there are differences and actually works to make it level.

You can't reason with a person who was born on third base, and whose fragile self-esteem requires that they pretend they hit a triple.

And if a person that barely was able to get out of the batters box gets ahead of them, they scream about affirmative action and white oppression.

Just don't call them racist. Because that would be racist, to call them racist.

This is the same syndrome when it comes to wages/wealthJust don't point it out or you are fomenting "class warfare" and encouraging sloth

This is just my opinion but I think what really "lost" the "shut down" argument in the court of public opinion for the political right was this guy:Without saying anything about what this guy's intentions were, no matter how innocent and "heritage not hate"/states' rightsy he meant it to be; the symbolism it gave was not good at all. It reflected bad on him and all associated with it. Even the national veterans' group that organized the nationwide demonstrations denounced it, saying it was usurped by political activists for their own agendas.

It really doesn't matter how non-racist the political right are in reality, and it might be true that the reason they didn't see the racism in it was due to them being so "non-racist". Unfortunately the image it portrays due to American history and what it is associated with to less educated non-conservative Americans who are still subconsciously "racist"; you would expect a political movement so centered around "symbolism" to be more aware of such matters.

This type of "symbolism" plays right into the "propaganda" of those who claim racist motivations behind "conservative" (especially Tea Party) politics. Just maybe the political right might want to be a little more sensitive to these matters than "in your face" about it. You know the same things they ask from the minorities they "outreach" to in meeting them half way.

scottydoesntknow:I don't get how you can farking say that after posting an essay titled "America Needs a White Republican President"

He was trolling you. His argument in it is that America has made Obama completely blameless for everything and anyone who does blame him for anything is derided as racist. Unlike when we had white Republican president and gas being too high (above $2/gal) was entirely his fault. Hell, the gov't shutdown of 2013 is still Bush's fault.

Mrbogey:He was trolling you. His argument in it is that America has made Obama completely blameless for everything and anyone who does blame him for anything is derided as racist. Unlike when we had white Republican president and gas being too high (above $2/gal) was entirely his fault. Hell, the gov't shutdown of 2013 is still Bush's fault.

heavymetal:This is just my opinion but I think what really "lost" the "shut down" argument in the court of public opinion for the political right was this guy:[thenewcivilrightsmovement.com image 500x220]Without saying anything about what this guy's intentions were, no matter how innocent and "heritage not hate"/states' rightsy he meant it to be; the symbolism it gave was not good at all. It reflected bad on him and all associated with it. Even the national veterans' group that organized the nationwide demonstrations denounced it, saying it was usurped by political activists for their own agendas.

It really doesn't matter how non-racist the political right are in reality, and it might be true that the reason they didn't see the racism in it was due to them being so "non-racist". Unfortunately the image it portrays due to American history and what it is associated with to less educated non-conservative Americans who are still subconsciously "racist"; you would expect a political movement so centered around "symbolism" to be more aware of such matters.

This type of "symbolism" plays right into the "propaganda" of those who claim racist motivations behind "conservative" (especially Tea Party) politics. Just maybe the political right might want to be a little more sensitive to these matters than "in your face" about it. You know the same things they ask from the minorities they "outreach" to in meeting them half way.

The Tea Party hasn't learned that the majority of Americans are just farking stupid. They need to get better at politics.

Animatronik:A better word might be "parasitic" because the party has become a parasite feeding on the corpse of America's economic prosperity.

Not really, no. If you feed on a corpse, you're not a parasite, you're a scavenger or predator. Parasitism is when you co-opt an organism's natural function to benefit your own, and harmful parasitism is where this is done in a way that benefits the parasite over the host.

I doubt you care, because the rest of what you had to say is pretty stupid and wrong, but I figure this one deserved special attention.

The Dominionists and the Mega-Churchers have also poisoned the well on poverty. The Prosperity Gospel says God wants you to be rich and wealth is a sign you're doing something right. The flip side of that is, poverty is viewed as a symptom of moral failings, not a cause. Poor people are poor because they're terrible people, and justifies the "they're moochers" mindset.

But allow me to retort...

The converse seems to be the notion that poor people are entitled to permanent assistance, which only encourages them to continue in that state.

It may SEEM that way to you but there is no such notion. Neither party is promoting permanent assistance (with the exception, perhaps, for the permanently disabled). In fact, BOTH "sides" have mandated things like "welfare to work" and limited the time to collect unemployment. What is currently encouraging - even mandating - a state of permanent assistance are profitable corporations (see fast food industries) who underpay employees who are directed to assistance programs AS A MATTER OF COURSE.

When you're talking about absolute necessities like food, water, heat, and sanitation, that makes sense if you can do it within the available means..

As has been said for the past four decades? We have the means - if we chose to prioritize, The steps would include better education and housing (read "less corruption and theft of funding) as well as a realistic examination of our bloated defense costs. Rather than do this, we opted to create the DHS - which costs us more than it would take to provide food water and heat to entire cities.The Democratic Party has reached the point though where that's not good enough. Now they want to give everybody free cell phones, free health care, and free money. They want to give necessities to people who don't really need them also, who could afford to pay for them.

The Democratic Party did not start the phone program - do your homework. Health care is not "free" - it is paid for by the american people. I am okay with this because I have been to Haiti and would rather not have a system breakdown from diseases that cost more to treat than prevent. As for money, see above. As for your assertion people can pay for these things themselves? see above also.

That's because the Democrats aren't really about fulfilling basic necessities. What they're about is buying as many votes as possible, and it doesn't matter to them if it degrades a man's self respect and capability to support himself and degrades the family structure by encouraging single motherhood. None of that matters the slightest to Democrats if they can get your vote.

Contrary to your assumption, people who are just having their basic necessities met (by whatever party that you seem to think unilaterally throws money into the air without a vote to pass a law or program or spending) generally DONT vote. This is part of the reasoning behind mandating photo ID and why so many are concerned about it. It costs money. And subsistance living doesn't include buying ID.

If you want to make the argument that welfare programs (again, voted on by BOTH parties) encouraged single parenthood then let me also mention that the war on drugs - and the unbalanced percentage of black males incarcerated - also rather helped this particular problem. Don't pretend as if this was a Democratic plan.

Racist? In effect yes because it disproportionately affects blacks. A better word might be "parasitic" because the party has become a parasite feeding on the corpse of America's economic prosperity.

Who is feeding off the corpse of America are the wallstreet bankers who game the system raking off enough profits to cover the college tuition of entire schools full of children and corporations like walmart who rely on taxpayers to subsidize not only their losses but the very workers you deride as being parasitic.

What is worse? Uncontrolled greed masked as "job makers" or sub-standard living conditions labeled "parasitic"?

In the south, there likely still are areas where "Dixiecrat" white democrats are prevalent, and more racist than the local GOP; and there may be some subtle forms of racism that are more common among Democrats than Republicans.

However, in the country as a whole, there's a lot more tendency to unsubtle racism among Republicans than among Democrats.

Practical_Draconian:The derp is dangerous," she said, "but it gives herp. We derp down so many avenues of the past . . . Yet, there's a herp where no derpsayer can say. We are repelled by it, terrorized. It is said a man will come one day and find in the gift of the derp in his inward eye. He will herp where we cannot.""Your Kwisatz Wurzelbach?""Yes, the one who can herp many derps at the black ones: the Kwisatz Wurzelbach. Many men have tried the derp . . . so many, but none has succeeded.""They tried and failed, all of them?""Oh, no." She shook her head. "They tried and died."

RyogaM:Black people are the most politically astute voting class in the U.S. today and voting as a block for Democrats is just proof of that.

I wouldn't say that. Black people are to a large extent boogymen of the right; they aren't allowed to come out and say what they think in bald language, but their racism is palpable. You don't see anything like that with poor whites, on the contrary the GOP sings their praises, calls them "real Americans", etc., all while robbing them blind. It isn't a matter of black voters being more astute, it's just that they aren't a significant target of GOP propaganda, and in fact are demonized and slandered by that propaganda. You can't openly disdain someone and still have them vote for you, you have to praise them to their faces and keep expressions of contempt behind closed doors.

Mrbogey:How many racist attacks have been committed by Tea Party members?

scottydoesntknow: I don't get how you can farking say that after posting an essay titled "America Needs a White Republican President"

He was trolling you. His argument in it is that America has made Obama completely blameless for everything and anyone who does blame him for anything is derided as racist. Unlike when we had white Republican president and gas being too high (above $2/gal) was entirely his fault. Hell, the gov't shutdown of 2013 is still Bush's fault.

I don't know, do the cops typically ask for your party affiliation when they book you? How do you survive being so ignorant? This is going to be one of those things where you're wrong...again...and then you will claim you said something that you really didn't say, isn't it? Your playbook is full of fail.

Mrbogey: He was trolling you. His argument in it is that America has made Obama completely blameless for everything and anyone who does blame him for anything is derided as racist. Unlike when we had white Republican president and gas being too high (above $2/gal) was entirely his fault. Hell, the gov't shutdown of 2013 is still Bush's fault.

2. You're still a moron.

Next question, please.

1. Dale Robertson disavowed by the Tea Party. Really when we think of the KKK, we think of a group that disavows racism and turns on members who display racism. Remember how David Duke was bounced when it turned out he was a racist? And when someone compared Bush to a Nazi it was clearly because he "looked German". How racist!

2. Yes, Obama's been blamed for high gas prices by a few people. Very few of them were the ones blaming Bush for high gas prices.

"The price of oil is at the doorstep -- 4 dollars plus per gallon for oil, is attributed to two oil men in the White House" - Nancy Pelosi. She never blamed Obama for gas being at that price for most of the past 5 years.

technicolor-misfit:If you really want to see the "paternalistic way libtards treat minorities," go tally how many black, Mexican, and female members of congress are Democrats versus how many are Republicans.

Republicans try running minority candidates but white Democrats refuse to vote for them. So many minority Democrats refuse to get off the plantation and help advance their people. The Democrats that minorities elect all too often enrich themselves and their loyal inner circle and destroy the community- see every Detroit, New Orleans, and Washington DC.